diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'docs/development/requirements/use_cases/service_binding_pattern.rst')
| -rw-r--r-- | docs/development/requirements/use_cases/service_binding_pattern.rst | 198 |
1 files changed, 198 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/docs/development/requirements/use_cases/service_binding_pattern.rst b/docs/development/requirements/use_cases/service_binding_pattern.rst new file mode 100644 index 0000000..f96e646 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/development/requirements/use_cases/service_binding_pattern.rst @@ -0,0 +1,198 @@ +.. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. +.. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 +.. (c) Georg Kunz + + +Service Binding Design Pattern +------------------------------ + +Description +^^^^^^^^^^^ + +This use case aims at binding multiple networks or network services to a single +vNIC (port) of a given VM. There are several specific application scenarios for +this use case: + +* Shared Service Functions: A service function connects to multiple networks of + a tenant by means of a single vNIC. + + Typically, a vNIC is bound to a single network. Hence, in order to directly + connect a service function to multiple networks at the same time, multiple vNICs + are needed - each vNIC binds the service function to a separate network. For + service functions requiring connectivity to a large number of networks, this + approach does not scale as the number of vNICs per VM is limited and additional + vNICs occupy additional resources on the hypervisor. + + A more scalable approach is to bind multiple networks to a single vNIC + and let the service function, which is now shared among multiple networks, + handle the separation of traffic itself. + + +* Multiple network services: A service function connects to multiple different + network types such as a L2 network, a L3(-VPN) network, a SFC domain or + services such as DHCP, IPAM, firewall/security, etc. + + +In order to achieve a flexible binding of multiple services to vNICs, a logical +separation between a vNIC (instance port) - that is, the entity that is used by +the compute service as hand-off point between the network and the VM - and a +service interface - that is, the interface a service binds to - is needed. + +Furthermore, binding network services to service interfaces instead of to the +vNIC directly enables a more dynamic management of the network connectivity of +network functions as there is no need to add or remove vNICs. + + +Requirements +^^^^^^^^^^^^ + +Data model +"""""""""" + +This section describes a general concept for a data model and a corresponding +API. It is not intended that these entities are to be implemented exactly as +described. Instead, they are meant to show a design pattern for future network +service models and their corresponding APIs. For example, the "service" entity +should hold all required attributes for a specific service, for instance a given +L3VPN service. Hence, there would be no entity "service" but rather "L3VPN". + + +* ``instance-port`` + + An instance port object represents a vNIC which is bindable to an OpenStack + instance by the compute service (Nova). + + *Attributes:* Since an instance-port is a layer 2 device, its attributes + include the MAC address, MTU and others. + + +* ``interface`` + + An interface object is a logical abstraction of an instance-port. It allows to + build hierarchies of interfaces by means of a reference to a parent interface. + Each interface represents a subset of the packets traversing a given port or + parent interface after applying a layer 2 segmentation mechanism specific to the + interface type. + + *Attributes:* The attributes are specific to the type of interface. + + *Examples:* trunk interface, VLAN interface, VxLAN interface, MPLS interface + + +* ``service`` + + A service object represents a specific networking service. + + *Attributes:* The attributes of the service objects are service specific and + valid for given service instance. + + *Examples:* L2, L3VPN, SFC + + +* ``service-port`` + + A service port object binds an interface to a service. + + *Attributes:* The attributes of a service-port are specific for the bound + service. + + *Examples:* port services (IPAM, DHCP, security), L2 interfaces, L3VPN + interfaces, SFC interfaces. + + + +Northbound API +"""""""""""""" + +An exemplary API for manipulating the data model is described below. As for the +data model, this API is not intended to be a concrete API, but rather an example +for a design pattern that clearly separates ports from services and service +bindings. + +* ``instance-port-{create,delete} <name>`` + + Creates or deletes an instance port object that represents a vNIC in a VM. + + +* ``interface-{create,delete} <name> [interface type specific parameters]`` + + Creates or deletes an interface object. + + +* ``service-{create,delete} <name> [service specific parameters]`` + + Create a specific service object, for instance a L3VPN, a SFC domain, or a L2 network. + + +* ``service-port-{create,delete} <service-id> <interface-id> [service specific parameters]`` + + Creates a service port object, thereby binding an interface to a given service. + + + +Orchestration +""""""""""""" + +None. + + +Dependencies on other resources +""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" + +The compute service needs to be able to consume instance ports instead of +classic Neutron ports. + + +Current Implementation +^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ + +The core Neutron API does not follow the service binding design pattern. For +example, a port has to exist in a Neutron network - specifically it has to be +created for a particular Neutron network. It is not possible to create just a +port and assign it to a network later on as needed. As a result, a port cannot +be moved from one network to another, for instance. + +Regarding the shared service function use case outlined above, there is an +ongoing activity in Neutron [VLAN-AWARE-VMs]_. The solution proposed by this +activity allows for creating a trunk-port and multiple sub-ports per Neutron +port which can be bound to multiple networks (one network per sub-port). This +allows for binding a single VNIC to multiple networks and allow the +corresponding VMs to handle the network segmentation (VLAN tagged traffic) +itself. While this is a step in the direction of binding multiple services +(networks) to a port, it is limited by the fundamental assumption of Neutron +that a port has to exist on a given network. + +There are extensions of Neutron that follow the service binding design pattern +more closely. An example is the BGPVPN project. A rough mapping of the service +binding design pattern to the data model of the BGPVPN project is as follows: + +* instance-port -> Neutron port + +* service -> VPN + +* service-port -> network association + +This example shows that extensions of Neutron can in fact follow the described +design pattern in their respective data model and APIs. + + + +Conclusions +^^^^^^^^^^^ + +In conclusion, the design decisions taken for the core Neutron API and data +model do not follow the service binding model. As a result, it is hard to +implement certain use cases which rely on a flexible binding of services to +ports. Due to the backwards compatibility to the large amount of existing +Neutron code, it is unlikely that the core Neutron API will adapt to this design +pattern. + +New extension to Neutron however are relatively free to choose their data model +and API - within the architectural boundaries of Neutron of course. In order to +provide the flexibility needed, extensions shall aim for following the service +binding design pattern if possible. + +For the same reason, new networking frameworks complementing Neutron, such as +Gluon, shall follow this design pattern and create the foundation for +implementing networking services accordingly. + |